November 2–November 8, 2024
- Woman with a history of financially motivated criminal dishonesty contests Decedent’s will; claims that she and the Decedent had secretly married; and seeks half of his “sizeable” estate. The trial court dismisses the petition, finding both that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that the marriage certificate that Woman presented was fraudulent and that Woman’s intentional destruction of evidence in violation of a protective order warranted a sanction of involuntary dismissal. Tennessee Court of Appeals, more respectfully than necessary: In addition to the credible handwriting expert who testified that the signature on the supposed marriage certificate was not the Decedent’s and a bunch of other evidence that supports the conclusion that there was no such marriage, Woman “could not state the date of her purported ten-year secret marriage, stated that she thought of herself as single, cited a faulty memory due to previous drug use when asked certain questions while being sure in her answers to other questions, and presented, without any corroborating witnesses, a story of how she and Decedent became married that is, respectfully, implausible.” So the trial court’s order is affirmed.
- Litigant seeks trial court judge’s recusal based on claim that the judge trespassed into a law firm’s office to access confidential documents and, alternatively, that the judge is biased. Tennessee Court of Appeals: “the video provided by [Litigant] was insufficient to show that [trial court judge] tampered with any records held in [the] offices[,]” so “[o]ther than insinuation, there is no evidence of misconduct on the part of” the trial court judge. And there also is insufficient evidence of bias to support a recusal claim. So the trial court’s order denying Litigant’s recusal motion is affirmed with thoughts and prayers for Litigant’s attorneys on remand.
- Petitioner files a notarized but unsworn petition for a writ of certiorari. Alas, Article VI, Section 10 of the Tennessee Constitution—which authorizes such petitions—requires that they be “supported by oath or affirmation,” and a statute that governs them provides further that they “may be sworn to before the clerk of the circuit court, the judge, any judge of the court of general sessions, or a notary public . . . .” Tennessee Court of Appeals: The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that failing to verify such a petition deprives courts of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals has applied that rule many times. So the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition, and its order is vacated. [Editorial note: Although the fact that the constitutional provision at issue establishes the verification requirement here probably precludes the claim, there is at least an argument to be made—which has never really been considered by anyone—that this is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional one.]
- Company contracts with Manufacturer to manufacture beverage products. Unfortunately, due to manufacturing, staffing, and equipment issues, Manufacturer is unable to produce adequate products, causing Company substantial damages. For reasons that are unexplained, Company does not sue under the Parties’ contract; instead, it sues for a misrepresentation-based common law tort claim and asserts a Tennessee Consumer Protection Act violation. Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[B]ecause the amended complaint indicates that this is a products liability case between two sophisticated business entities that entered into a contract, involves an attempt to recover only economic losses, and involves tort claims that concern the subject matter of the contract, we conclude that the common law tort claims asserted by [Company] are barred by the economic loss doctrine.” And because Company “was aware, well over a year prior to the commencement of litigation, of [Manufacturer’s] repeated failure to manufacture the Products appropriately,” the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim is time-barred. Basically, this needed to be a breach of contract case to be actionable, but for whatever reason, no breach of contract claim is asserted. So the trial court’s order dismissing the case is affirmed.
Firm Highlights
Horwitz Law, PLLC was back in the Tennessee Court of Appeals itself last week, arguing that a trial court’s order denying a Tennessee Public Participation Act petition on clearly wrong grounds that no one even argued below should be reversed. Watch the argument here: https://www.youtube.com/
